Prescriptive and descriptive linguistics

Some people think that linguistics is -- or should be -- all about how to speak or write
properly. Others believe that the role of linguistics should be only to describe how
people actually do speak and write, without making value judgments or trying to
establish normative rules.

The shorthand terms for the two sides of this

disagreement: prescriptive vs. descriptive linguistics.

As we'll see, linguistics can certainly be used prescriptively, and often is. And the
results of careful description and analysis are at least implicitly normative.

However, modern linguists insist that value judgments about language should be
recognized as such, and should be examined in the light of the facts. As a result,
some critics feel that linguists' attitudes stand in the way of the establishment and
maintenance of language standards. You can find a sample of the debate in Geoff
Nunberg's classic article Decline of Grammar , or Mark Halpern's more recent
riposte A War That Never Ends .

Negotiating a truce
There are genuine differences of opinion about language policy. Linguistic analysis
lets us state the issues clearly -- when this is done, people sometimes disagree less
than they thought they did about "correctness" in English.

In particular, we can distinguish four types of "correctness":

1. Established criteria of educated written language

1. third-person singular /s/: "she goes," not "she go."
2. no double negatives: "he didn't see anybody," not "he didn't see nobody."
3. complete sentences
2. Issues on which educated people differ (and which may be different in written and
spoken forms, or in different registers of writing and speech):
1. "who/whom did you see"
2. "Winston tastes good like/as a cigarette should"
3. "the data is/are unreliable"
4. "I disapprove of him/his doing it"
5. "get it done as quick/quickly as possible"
6. "hopefully, she'll be there on time"
7. Contractions
3. Changes in the spoken language that some people resist:
1. "between you and I"
2. "me and Harry went downtown"
3. "was" (or "was all", "was like") for "said"
4. Pure inventions of self-appointed grammarians with little or no basis in actual usage:
1. prohibition of dangling prepositions
 2. "I shall" vs. "you will"
3. "It is I"
4. prohibition of split infinitives
5. prohibition of "less" with countables

There is a range of attitudes about "correctness" among the world's languages, from
unconstrained vernacular evolution to maximal standardization and codification:

1. Pidgins and creoles, which develop rapidly among speakers who need a new common
language -- for instance:
1. Haitian Creole (6+ million speakers in Haiti and New York City)
2. Tok Pisin (2 million speakers in Papua New Guinea)
3. Jamaican Creole or Patois (2 million speakers)
4. Hawaiian Creole (1/2 million speakers)
5. Palenquero (3,000 speakers in Colombia)
2. Unwritten languages -- or languages where writing is hardly ever used -- whose form is
set by spoken interaction only:
1. Ilocano (5.3 million speakers, Philippines)
2. Chagga (800,000 speakers, Tanzania)
3. Buang (10,000 speakers, Papua New Guinea)
3. Written languages with no academies -- for instance
1. English (400 million speakers)
2. Marathi (65 million speakers)
4. Languages with academies
1. French (109 million speakers; academy established 1635)
2. Spanish (266 million speakers; academy established 1713)
3. Hungarian (14.4 million speakers; academy established 1830)
4. Hebrew (2.7 million speakers; academy established 1953)
5. Languages codified to preserve an archaic form, for instance:
1. Latin
2. Old Church Slavonic
3. Sanskrit

Language preservation
The roots of linguistics are actually to be found in the needs of the last two, most
prescriptive, categories of "correctness" cited above. Linguists have been involved for
several millenia in the codification and preservation of languages, and we have
learned a few lessons in the process.

The first linguist whose work has come down to us is Panini, an Indian grammarian of
the fifth or sixth century B.C. We have some dictionary fragments and grammar
lessons from a thousand years earlier, when Sumerian was being preserved as a
literary and religious language.

Panini's grammar contained more than 4,000 rules, which were memorized in spoken
form only, and were not written down until several hundred years after his death. The
purpose of his grammar was to preserve knowledge of the language of the Hindu
religious canon. In Panini's time, the ordinary language of the people had changed
so much (since the composition of works like the Vedas) that correct recitation and
understanding of the sacred works could not be assured without explicit study. The
same sort of process has happened again and again throughout history, in language
after language.

The social dimension

The goals of the early grammarians were

1. to codify the principles of languages, so as to show the system beneath "the apparent
chaos of usage"
2. to provide a means of settling disputes over usage
3. to "improve" the language by pointing out common errors

The prescriptive agenda almost always has an aspect of social gatekeeping. In this
role, arbitrary features of language are used to block social advancement, to put
people in their place or to keep them there.

In the England of a half-century ago, membership in the upper class was signaled by
subtleties of vocabulary choice that S. C. Ross called "U and non-U," for "upper
class" and "non-upper class". Here are a few of the thousands of distinctions in
question:

U Non-U
looking-glass mirror
have a bath take a bath
sick ill
rich wealthy
wireless radio

A clever parvenu might conceivably learn to imitate "received pronunciation," as Eliza

Doolittle did under the tutelage of Henry Higgins. However, the only way to master
every nuance of U vocabulary is to spend your life with U people.

A literal (and fatal) example of language as gatekeeper is given in Judges 12:

4 Jephthah then called together the men of Gilead and fought against
Ephraim. The Gileadites struck them down because the Ephraimites had
said, "You Gileadites are renegades from Ephraim and Manasseh."
5 The Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan leading to Ephraim, and
whenever a survivor of Ephraim said, "Let me cross over," the men of
Gilead asked him, "Are you an Ephraimite?" If he replied, "No,"
6 they said, "All right, say `Shibboleth.'" If he said, "Sibboleth," because he
could not pronounce the word correctly, they seized him and killed him at
the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed at that
time.

As a result of this story, we use the word "shibboleth" to mean an arbitrary linguistic
marker that distinguishes one group from another. A 20th-century parallel to the
Biblical shibboleth story took place in the Dominican Republic in 1937, when tens of
thousands of Haitians are said to have been massacred on the basis of how they
pronounced the /r/ in the Spanish word for "parsley."

From diagnosis to prescription

It would be odd for a medical researcher to say "I'm not going to tell you what you
should do -- that would not be part of medical science -- but I can offer you some
statistics about the medical consequences of eating tainted hamburger. You can
decide for yourself whether you want to get food poisoning, or not."

Why are most linguists reluctant to take the step from description to prescription?

The short answer is "because a social or regional dialect is not a medical condition."

Communication disorders
In the case of genuine disorders of communication, where the medical anology holds,
there is no reluctance to give prescriptive advice, to the extent that valid treatment is
available.

There are disciplines allied to linguistics that specialize in the diagnosis and
treatment of language- and speech-related disorders. These are generally known
as Logopedics and Phoniatrics in Europe and Japan, and go under various less obscure
names such as Communicative Disorders in the United States. Linguists also
cooperate with medical specialists such neurologists and otolaryngologists to
improve the basic understanding, diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions
involving speech and language.

In the case of a nodule on the vocal cords, or a brain injury, or a speech defect such
as stuttering, no one objects to moving from study and diagnosis to advice and
treatment.

Language change is not corruption

Language change is not "corruption" or "decay", but a natural and inevitable process.
Attempts to stop it lead to diglossia, a situation in which formal and ordinary language
get further and further apart, and eventually split into two different languages. You
can preserve the elite language for a long time (there are still speakers of Sanskrit in
modern India), but you can't stop the process.

These facts don't tell us what values to have. We might decide that it would be a
good thing for a particular variety of English -- say the English of Jane Austen, or the
English of Theodore White -- to become an unchanging language of formal
discourse for the elite, like Latin in Medieval Europe, with the language(s) of daily life
despised as "vulgar tongues." We might decide to prefer the existing gradual process
of change in formal English, in which one "standard" after another is defended and
then abandoned. We might even prefer the linguistic anarchy of Elizabethan
England, where people spoke, wrote (and spelled) English as they pleased, although
they applied strict formal guidelines to their Latin and Greek.

The fact is, it probably doesn't matter much what we want. The English language is
likely to go on in the future roughly as it has over the past few hundred years, with a
wide range of regional and social varieties, and a more-or-less international formal
standard, imposed by consensus and changing gradually over time.

Standards: preservation or imagination?

In the debate about language standards, each of the several sides tends to get
annoyed about various failures and stupidities of the others. One thing that gets
linguists particularly cheesed off is bad scholarship on the part of some language
mavens, who pretend, without checking, that a principle they just thought up is
hallowed by centuries of the best writers' usage, or is a necessary consequence of
the fundamental laws of logic. This what we identified earlier as level 4 on the
"correctness" scale: pseudo-correctness.

If it turns out that Shakespeare or The New York Times routinely violates the "rule" in
question, the pretence is exposed. Linguists love this.

A particularly exuberant example of pedant-puncturing is provided by Henry

Churchyard's now-defunct "anti-pedantry page" (content available here), which
systematically documents the use of "singular their" by Jane Austen, one of the
greatest prose stylists ever to compose an English sentence. He includes a passage
from Steven Pinker on the same construction. Pinker argues that those who fault
"singular their" for violating the logic of grammatical agreement have simply
misunderstood the grammar of pronouns used with quantifiers as antecedents.

What is "singular their"? It's the use of "they" or "their" in connection with an indefinite
third person antecedent.

Churchyard provides an example with a message:

it's time for anyone who still thinks that singular "their" is so-called "bad grammar" to get
rid of their prejudices and pedantry!
He explains that this use of "their" dates back to the 14th century, when the
pronominal system of modern English was first being formed. "Singular their" was
first faulted (by a grammarian applying mistaken analogies from Latin) in 1795, but
continued to be used by many respected writers up to the present day. Churchyard's
argument is essentially historical -- "singular their" has been a part of English from
the start, and the movement to exclude it is an artificial intrusion. Churchyard's
evidence is certainly impressive -- seldom has so massive an apparatus of
scholarship been deployed to rout the forces of pedantry.

For another (less serious) take on the subject, see the Language Log post "'Singular
they': God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

Steven Pinker makes a different argument. He suggests that those who fault
"singular their" for violating the rules of grammatical agreement have wrongly
analyzed the grammar of the situation, or at least have mixed up two things that need
to be kept apart.

Some pronouns refer to determinate (if perhaps imaginary) things: Ann, Sam's
nightmares, the milky way. In this case, pronouns naturally reflect the number of their
referent. No one who knows English would say "Kim hurt their hand," even if unsure
whether Kim is male or female.

Other pronouns don't really refer to anything at all, but instead function like what
logicians call "bound variables", place holders in phrases that express relationships
among sets of things. For instance, when we say "every girl loves her mother," the
pronoun her doesn't refer to any particular girl, but instead helps to establish a certain
relationship between girls and mothers, namely that every girl has just one.

The grammar (and logic) of quantifiers like "every" is actually quite subtle and difficult
to get right. The ancient Greek (and Roman) logicians (and grammarians) were not
able to devise a workable approach, nor were the logicans of Medieval Europe. The
first adequate quantificational logic was only devised about a century ago,
by Gottloeb Frege and Bertrand Russell. They were working on the foundations of
mathematics; the relationship between the grammar and the logic of quantificational
expressions in natural languages remains a topic of research to this day. So it's not
surprising that a language maven in 1795 (or 1997!) should assume an analysis of
quantifiers in English that is demonstrably wrong.

Not everyone is convinced by these arguments.

Jack Lynch's excellent Grammar and Style Notes say that in such cases

the colloquial their (a plural) doesn't agree with the verb, and is not grammatically correct.
We use this often in speaking -- "a friend of mine called me." "What did they say?" --
but, although many writers have used it (see examples from Jane Austen), it often
makes for bad formal writing today.
To read the whole of Lynch's commentary, look in his on-line notes under "Sexist
language and the indefinite third person."

Lynch's "Jane Austen" link connects to Churchyard's page, and he explicitly

concedes the historical point. He still believes in the agreement argument -- his
position seems to be that agreement failure is a complicated business, but he knows
it when he sees it. He may well be wrong, but at this point we are putting one set of
native-speaker intuitions (from Pinker and Churchyard) up against another (from
Lynch).

After two centuries of struggle, the anti-singular-their forces have won the hearts and
minds of an influential fraction of the population. Thanks to Churchyard, Pinker and
others, they can't get away with claiming that "singular their" is an example of the
decay of the English language, or that it is a violation of the laws of logic.

Prohibition of "singular their" is an innovation, and both the logic and the grammar
behind it are shaky at best. However, one can grant these points and still agree with
Lynch that "it often makes for bad formal writing today."

For Churchyard, this is a concession to stupidity. For Lynch, it is a recognition of

reality, and perhaps also an expression of his own taste.

But aren't these just mistakes?

Surely not every bugbear of the language mavens is an arbitrary prejudice foisted on
a credulous public.

Speakers and writers may use a completely inappropriate word that happens to
sound like the one they meant, or combine metaphors into phrases whose literal
meanings are ludicrous, or start with one cliche and end with another, or otherwise
use language badly.

There were tears strolling down their faces.

His views on that subject are always disconcerning.
It was a spur-of-the-cuff remark.
I may look calm, but beneath this cool exterior is a churning iceberg ready to explode!

A new kind of example is created by computer spell-checkers and similar programs.

(This has come to be known as the "Cupertino effect", named after the fact that some
spell checkers, faced with "cooperatino" in place of "cooperation", silently correct it to
"Cupertino".) These examples are amusing in roughly the same way as the human
examples, and may arise for roughly similar reasons.

Another class of cases have come to be called "eggcorns". Here someone mishears
a common word or phrase in a way that preserves the meaning, but gets to the
meaning by a new route: "free reign" instead of "free rein", "give up the goat" instead
of "give up the ghost" -- or the example that gave the phenomenon its name,
"eggcorn" instead of "acorn".

Do linguists defend these malefactors too?

No. Especially not the computers. A mistake is a mistake.

However, we should point out that mistakes of this kind often become part of the
language after a while. There are plenty of things in the modern standard English that
started out as malapropisms or eggcorns, and if we paid attention to the source of
every originally-metaphorical word, almost every phrase could be criticized.

For instance, the the word "muscle" is from Latin musculus "little mouse". If we kept
this original meaning in mind, an expression like "put some muscle into law
enforcement" would seem pretty silly --- put a small mouse into law enforcement --
Mickey or Minnie? In fact, the expression is fine, because the etymology of the word
"muscle" has entirely faded out of our consciousness.

A problem arises when such changes are in progress. These cases are the real stock
in trade of the language mavens, who often give useful advice about the status of
one struggle or another in this arena .

Dialect
One notable battle in this area was the 1996 Ebonics debate. Here is the full text of
the 'Ebonics' Resolution adopted by the Oakland school board. Here is a negative
reactions from Project 21.

On the positive side, here is an essay by linguist Chuck Fillmore and

a resolutionpassed by the Linguistic Society of America.

Finally, here is a 1972 magazine article by Bill Labov, Academic Ignorance and
Black Intelligence , which discusses many relevant issues almost 25 years before the
event.

A short historical list of obscure prescriptivist bugbears

Descriptive linguists like to poke fun at prescriptivists by citing some historical
objections that are hard to understand today. This is a bit unfair, since of course the
examples are selected from cases where complaint and ridicule failed to stem the
tide of change. One might also cite a set of linguistic innovations that died out instead
of taking over. On the other hand, people generally feel compelled to speak out
against a particular usage just in case it is spreading.
For instance, in 1586, Angel Day ridiculed exasperate, egregious and arcane as
being "preposterous and confused."

Jonathan Swift, in 1710, objected

to mob, operations, ambassadors, communications, preliminaries and banter. Can
you figure out why?

See if you can determine what led a commentator in London to attack this passage
by Thomas Jefferson, from Notes on the State of Virginia, as "degraded" and
"vicious" in its misuse of the English language:

I only mean to suggest a doubt, whether the bulk and faculties of animals depend on the side of
the Atlantic on which their food happens to grow, or which furnishes the elements of which they
are compounded? [. . .] I am induced to suspect, there has been more eloquence than sound
reasoning displayed in support of this theory; that it is one of those cases where the judgment
has been seduced by a glowing pen: and whilst I render every tribute of honor and esteem to
the celebrated Zoologist, who has added, and is still adding, so many precious things to the
treasures of science, I must doubt whether in this instance he has not cherished error also, by
lending her for a moment his vivid imagination and bewitching language.

So far the Count de Buffon has carried this new theory of the tendency of nature to belittle her
productions on this side of the Atlantic. Its application to the race of whites, transplanted from
Europe, remained for the Abbe Raynal.

If you're like most modern readers, it will surprise you that the complaint should have
focused on belittle, which was viewed as a barbarous American coinage. Jefferson's
use in this passage is the earliest citation given in the Oxford English Dictionary.

In 1785, James Beattie objected vehemently to the use

of reform for reformation, approval for approbation, novel for new, existence for life,
and capture for take militarily.

In 1837, the Englishman Captain Frederick Marryat ridiculed American usage

of fixfor prepare, stoop for porch, great for splendid, right away for at once,
and strike for attack.

In books like Words and Their Uses (1870) and Everyday English (1880), Richard
Grant White objected to "words that are not words, ... a cause of great discomfort to
all right thinking, straightforward people." His examples
include reliable, telegraph, donate, jeopardize and gubernatorial.

White also objects to words that are really words, but are "constantly abused":

Good Bad Comments

pitcher jug
 remainder balance
overtake catch
"dirt means filth, and primarily
earth dirt
filth of the most offensive kind."
leading article editorial
wharf dock "docks must be covered"
send transmit
oversee supervise
condemn repudiate
home residence
recover recuperate
killed executed "a perversion"
settle locate "insufferable"
convince persuade "vulgar"
good splendid "coarse"
jewels jewelry "of very low caste"
iced cream ice cream
? caption "laughable and absurd"

Note that Marryat and White, only 33 years apart though on opposite sides of the
Atlantic, are on opposite sides with respect to the use of "spendid."

It is not only the prescriptivists of earlier centuries whose concerns sometimes seem
obscure to us today. For instance, within the past generation, the language maven
Edwin Newman has diagnosed a problem with sentences like this:

After the nature of Mr. Smith's illness was determined by a team of neurologists, he
was hospitalized for an additional week of tests.

It might be "blight, bloat, illiteracy, disrepect for language, misspelling, comma faults,
dangling participles, or flagrant propaganda" -- these are the sins that Newman
announces he is campaigning against. Can you tell what the problem is in this case?
The answer is the use of a word formed with the affix -ize, which Newman thinks is
ugly. Prioritize and personalize are also stigmatized for him.

How about this sentence, in which Newman finds a different but equally serious fault:

Ervin was aided by Paul Verkuil, a professor at the University of North Carolina, in
gathering the evidence that convinced Congress to adopt the provision.
The answer? "You may convince that. You may convince of. You may not
convince to."

One last Newmanity:

The government admits to more than 300 dead, giving a "body count" of 225
rebels, about 50 civilians, and only 29 of its own troops.

What's the problem here? "When -- and more to the point, why -- did a troop become
the same thing as a soldier? A troop is a body of men. Tear those patches off your
sashes, all you Girl Scout troops. And never mind the American Heritage Dictionary's
permissive third entry: Military units, soldiers.' "

The case of the disappearing endings

Richard Faust, in Columbia Magazine, 11/83, points out that there is a historical
tendency for the -ed ending to drop in commonly-used terms that start out as phrases
of the form Verb-ed Noun:

Newer (reduced) Form Older Form

skim milk skimmed milk
popcorn popped corn
roast beef roasted beef
wax paper waxed paper
ice cream iced cream
ice tea iced tea
shave ice (Hawaian dessert) shaved ice (?)
cream corn (informal) creamed corn
whip cream (informal) whipped cream

Bilingualism, stigmatized dialects and linguistic nationalism

Linguistic prescriptivism often takes on shades of nationalism as well as morality. In
1926, the National Council of Teachers of English urged its members to have their
children recite this Better Speech Week Pledge:

I love the United States of America. I love my country's flag. I love my country's
language. I promise:
 1. That I will not dishonor my country's speech by leaving off the last
syllable of words.
2. That I will say a good American "yes" and "no" in place of an Indian grunt
"um-hum" and "nup-um" or a foreign "ya" or "yeh" and "nope."
3. That I will do my best to improve American speech by avoiding loud
rough tones, by enunciating distinctly, and by speaking pleasantly, clearly
and sincerely.

Feelings sometimes run a bit high about standards of English usage, but there
are real language wars out there, that tear countries apart. The Ephraimites died over
the pronunciation of /s/ -- when completely different languages are in contact, it's
even easier to make linguistic differences a point of conflict. We'll take this topic up
in detail later in the course. For some echoes of the current topic, read Bob King's
1997 Atlantic Magazine essay on the Official English movement.

Some other (optional!) links

David Foster Wallace, Democracy, English, and the Wars over Usage
H.W. Fowler, H. W. (1908) The King's English.
Jesse Sheidlower, Elegant Variation and All That
William Strunk Jr. (1918) Strunk, William. 1918. The Elements of Style.
Thurber on who and. whom

Language Log on "g-dropping", preposition stranding (and the false counter-

example that is falsely attributed to Churchill), that vs. which, sentences that start with
"And", genitive antecedents (more here), why you shouldn't put up with usage abuse,
how to defend yourself from bad advice about writing, a field guide to
prescriptivists, grammar cranks, WTF grammar, David Foster Wallace as a "snoot",
copy editors are not always right, why Lynne Truss thinks Thomas Jefferson should
be "struck by lightning, hacked up on the spot and buried in an unmarked grave",
and many other posts.